11 ms·

I find a lot of people invoke Christ, but have little to do with his teachings. Amusingly, his ideas align more with beliefs held by “the young left” than by “

I find a lot of people invoke Christ, but have little to do with his teachings. Amusingly, his ideas align more with beliefs held by “the young left” than by “the old right”. (Yesyes, bad terms but you know what I mean) And yet the real-world allegiances are inverted.

camhart 7y ago
You're missing the role of agency (or choice) in your evaluation. Forcing someone to do something vs someone choosing to do it of their own accord is quite different.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Fellshard 7y ago
  Figures you're being downvoted to pieces, when this is among the key aspects of Jesus' teachings. Indeed, the entire Sermon on the Mount is centered around the centrality of the /heart/ as the seat of sin, and the thoughts and intentions of the /heart/ as being the fount from which actions stem. Individual sin is what Jesus demanded repentance from; there is no 'collective sin' in Scripture, though groups of people with common sin may be punished collectively, e.g. the time of the Judges, Israel's captivity, etc. Given the 'young left' is a collectivist ideology, which seeks to institute a form of 'ancestral sin' - people being responsible for their parents' and grandparents' wrongs, etc. - and which has made physical wealth and attributes the sole measurements of moral integrity, being a purely secular worldview - it is not in any way compatible with the teachings of Christ. But people don't like to hear that. Self-righteousness is a potent drug, something else Christ taught about quite regularly. :)
  - mola 7y ago
    I really think you have major misconceptions about social democrat ideology. Your 'ancestral sin' interpretation could easily be said on capitalists who don't have a problem with people capital fortune being decided mostly a birth. (You're born poor, you are likely to stay poor, you're born rich you're likely to stay rich no matter what you do). Or, You could also easily say that the Protestant morals equate physical wealth accumulation with how moral you are. Because if you do good by God, of you'll get rewarded with prosperoty. In your lifetime. This is of course nonsense just as your interpretation of social democrat ideology.
    - Fellshard 7y ago
      None of what you just said aligns with reality. Being born into wealth lends a significant chance of mismanagement and losing that wealth. Protestants - not the megachurches that go by the label 'protestant', but believe nothing remotely related to Scripture - have no such conception. Lastly, you're moving what I said, narrowing the scope to 'democratic socialists'.
      - mola 7y ago
        I don't believe your claims entirely really true: 1. It's very hard to lose wealth while in management. Networking and clique play a big part of the manager eco system. Plus, in the startup area, if you are an entrepreneur that his startup failed you are not considered a failure, far from it. It is also more likely for you to bean entrepreneur if yoy have a strong financial background. 2. This 'True Protestant Ideal' isn't relevant. This 'false Protestant' developed from a Protestant mindset, through a natural evolution of ideas. Plus, I think you'd find that a similar part of these so called 'True Protestant' make claims like those I made point with. 3. The only relevant left in the west, is social democratic. Maybe in the US less so, only Sanders could fit that description. But, I'm not from the US, so my default meaning of left is social democratic. Which left we're you speaking of?
- asveikau 7y ago
  I don't think complaints about lack of individual agency fit with some of these Christian attitudes. eg. Someone violates said precious agency? Turn the other cheek. Concerned about excessive taxation? Render unto Caesar.
  - someguydave 7y ago
    That’s neither a call for cheek-whipping nor taxation.
_Codemonkeyism 7y ago
Many "Christians" follow more Moses than Jesus - and ignor Jesus teachings - and would better be called Mosians. Though amassing gold was also not Mosianic.
- api 7y ago
  I see more parallels between pop Christianity in the USA and Mithraism or the Roman imperial cult. It was shocking years ago to read the gospels and realize they are not following the actual teachings of Christ at all. In some cases those teachings are radically different and opposed to what most American Christians seem to advocate, especially on things like economics and militarism. The parallels are particularly strong with the Roman imperial cult now that so many seem to want to worship a Caesar. I see this trend as independent of Trump per se. I saw it around Bush II, but IMHO it didn't take there because Bush did not want to be emperor. I get the impression that Bush actively rejected that role, especially seeing the quiet life of apparent personal recovery he has pursued after the presidency.
  - Spooky23 7y ago
    IMO this phenomenon reflects the struggles that society has with communications. Mass communication is both miraculous and horrifying, and as controls weakened with deregulation in the 80s, and disappeared with the internet, we’re faced with a world where any idea can spread. You have places like HN that fill a certain purpose for the audience, but you also have places where neonazis and other repugnant fringes can do their thing.
allthecybers 7y ago
I’ve been explaining this concept to my Christian fundamentalist family members for a long time. They look at the right-wing as more faithful to the tenets of their religious literature, but I don’t see it. What I see is more of a left leaning set of ideals, that aligns with the teachings of Jesus. I think the population of people that are left leaning and Christian practicing is low and they don’t tend to be as influential on the national stage as the religious right.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  Usually the right winger types are pretty heavily into prosperity gospel and feel that their faith entitles them to whatever they are into. Many of the loudest folks are associated with unaffiliated parishes, where there is no higher earthly authority to reign in the pastor. You also see a lot of extreme behavior tied to single issues like abortion or birth control. In short, people very passionate about an issue will often veer (or be steered) into an ends justify the means type philosophy.
  - tomcam 7y ago
    > Usually the right winger types are pretty heavily into prosperity gospel and feel that their faith entitles them to whatever they are into. Citation? Not my experience at all.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > They look at the right-wing as more faithful to the tenets of their religious literature, but I don’t see it On the wealth issue specifically, you can certainly read it that way. I mean, I think it's wrong, but it's not like there aren't things that can be viewed, in isolation, as just as emphatic support for the prosperity gospel as other passages can be viewed as a mandate for asceticism. > I think the population of people that are left leaning and Christian practicing is low and they don’t tend to be as influential on the national stage as the religious right. The left-leaning Christian types tend not to wave Christianity around like a cudgel in political discussions, which makes them less visible as Christians in those contexts, even when they are quite visible.
dmix 7y ago
Have you read the full bible? The Jesus stuff might be more on the liberal end but Christianity in general is very much socially conservative. Especially the old testament. In genesis whenever god made a covenant (like made Abraham the main dude) it always came with God giving them great wealth (sheep and an abundance of land) as well as leadership of entire areas. At least the early stuff, the leaders/prophets were hardly the poverty stricken Jesus story. A lot of that poverty narrative became a greater part of Christianity with Saint Francis of Assisi in the middle ages which help push the helping the poor angle as mainstream image of the church. But otherwise you can find plenty of evidence of great wealth leaders in Christian history. Not just in the centuries of mass wealth accumulation in the Holy empires and the Catholic church.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The Jesus stuff might be more on the liberal end but Christianity in general is very much socially conservative. “Christianity” is about Christ, not something else. > Especially the old testament. The old testament is context for the NT, but with a very small number of exceptions (and with the exceptions of potential general applicability to Jewish Christians, which were common in the first Christian communities but rare today) the dictates of the OT law expressly are superceded by the “Jesus stuff” for Christians.
  - fjp 7y ago
    Yes this is exactly it. And just like the circumstances we are discussing now, Jesus found himself and his following in conflict with existing leaders who had amassed wealth and power, and who tried to delegitimize him by saying that his teachings (of charity and anti-wealth gathering) were just an assault on the legitimate god-given power of the existing church. Jesus was a radical hippie immigrant refugee, and his teachings are of course co opted now for the exact opposite effect.
    - dmix 7y ago
      That's an even worse modern day caricature than what the other guy was pushing. The immigrant thing especially considering he was born in Canaan/Israel within walking distance from Jerusalem. I highly recommend reading: "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/B00DYMLQEU/ https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/B... He was far from a hippie immigrant. He fit a pattern of many men before him claiming similar sanctity and happened to be at the right time and right place in a warn torn Israel for it to really find an audience. But I wasn't even talking about the man himself from a historical perspective, just the general religious and historical environment from which his legend grew. The man-of-the-poor and anti-wealthy narrative was very much a later development in the history of christianity and was always floating on the sidelines of their work, especially in terms of how it was adopted, not merely what was written in the decades and centuries after he died in the bible. Like all religious works there are plenty of room for interpretation and holy but great wealthy leaders are plentiful in the history of christianity. It's hardly a new thing. It's even more established in the Koran through the various prophets and leaders in their canon, all of whom held great power and leadership in their local areas. Even today the works of Mother Theresa are very controversial. Especially in terms of their long term ROI (ie, helping the poor stay poor by accepting their place and not developing the skills or industry to escape such die situations, which to me is not something to be revered).

camhart 7y ago

You're missing the role of agency (or choice) in your evaluation. Forcing someone to do something vs someone choosing to do it of their own accord is quite different.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Fellshard 7y ago
Figures you're being downvoted to pieces, when this is among the key aspects of Jesus' teachings. Indeed, the entire Sermon on the Mount is centered around the centrality of the /heart/ as the seat of sin, and the thoughts and intentions of the /heart/ as being the fount from which actions stem. Individual sin is what Jesus demanded repentance from; there is no 'collective sin' in Scripture, though groups of people with common sin may be punished collectively, e.g. the time of the Judges, Israel's captivity, etc. Given the 'young left' is a collectivist ideology, which seeks to institute a form of 'ancestral sin' - people being responsible for their parents' and grandparents' wrongs, etc. - and which has made physical wealth and attributes the sole measurements of moral integrity, being a purely secular worldview - it is not in any way compatible with the teachings of Christ. But people don't like to hear that. Self-righteousness is a potent drug, something else Christ taught about quite regularly. :)
- mola 7y ago
  I really think you have major misconceptions about social democrat ideology. Your 'ancestral sin' interpretation could easily be said on capitalists who don't have a problem with people capital fortune being decided mostly a birth. (You're born poor, you are likely to stay poor, you're born rich you're likely to stay rich no matter what you do). Or, You could also easily say that the Protestant morals equate physical wealth accumulation with how moral you are. Because if you do good by God, of you'll get rewarded with prosperoty. In your lifetime. This is of course nonsense just as your interpretation of social democrat ideology.
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    None of what you just said aligns with reality. Being born into wealth lends a significant chance of mismanagement and losing that wealth. Protestants - not the megachurches that go by the label 'protestant', but believe nothing remotely related to Scripture - have no such conception. Lastly, you're moving what I said, narrowing the scope to 'democratic socialists'.
    - mola 7y ago
      I don't believe your claims entirely really true: 1. It's very hard to lose wealth while in management. Networking and clique play a big part of the manager eco system. Plus, in the startup area, if you are an entrepreneur that his startup failed you are not considered a failure, far from it. It is also more likely for you to bean entrepreneur if yoy have a strong financial background. 2. This 'True Protestant Ideal' isn't relevant. This 'false Protestant' developed from a Protestant mindset, through a natural evolution of ideas. Plus, I think you'd find that a similar part of these so called 'True Protestant' make claims like those I made point with. 3. The only relevant left in the west, is social democratic. Maybe in the US less so, only Sanders could fit that description. But, I'm not from the US, so my default meaning of left is social democratic. Which left we're you speaking of?
asveikau 7y ago
I don't think complaints about lack of individual agency fit with some of these Christian attitudes. eg. Someone violates said precious agency? Turn the other cheek. Concerned about excessive taxation? Render unto Caesar.
- someguydave 7y ago
  That’s neither a call for cheek-whipping nor taxation.

_Codemonkeyism 7y ago

Many "Christians" follow more Moses than Jesus - and ignor Jesus teachings - and would better be called Mosians. Though amassing gold was also not Mosianic.

api 7y ago
I see more parallels between pop Christianity in the USA and Mithraism or the Roman imperial cult. It was shocking years ago to read the gospels and realize they are not following the actual teachings of Christ at all. In some cases those teachings are radically different and opposed to what most American Christians seem to advocate, especially on things like economics and militarism. The parallels are particularly strong with the Roman imperial cult now that so many seem to want to worship a Caesar. I see this trend as independent of Trump per se. I saw it around Bush II, but IMHO it didn't take there because Bush did not want to be emperor. I get the impression that Bush actively rejected that role, especially seeing the quiet life of apparent personal recovery he has pursued after the presidency.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  IMO this phenomenon reflects the struggles that society has with communications. Mass communication is both miraculous and horrifying, and as controls weakened with deregulation in the 80s, and disappeared with the internet, we’re faced with a world where any idea can spread. You have places like HN that fill a certain purpose for the audience, but you also have places where neonazis and other repugnant fringes can do their thing.

allthecybers 7y ago

I’ve been explaining this concept to my Christian fundamentalist family members for a long time. They look at the right-wing as more faithful to the tenets of their religious literature, but I don’t see it. What I see is more of a left leaning set of ideals, that aligns with the teachings of Jesus. I think the population of people that are left leaning and Christian practicing is low and they don’t tend to be as influential on the national stage as the religious right.

Spooky23 7y ago
Usually the right winger types are pretty heavily into prosperity gospel and feel that their faith entitles them to whatever they are into. Many of the loudest folks are associated with unaffiliated parishes, where there is no higher earthly authority to reign in the pastor. You also see a lot of extreme behavior tied to single issues like abortion or birth control. In short, people very passionate about an issue will often veer (or be steered) into an ends justify the means type philosophy.
- tomcam 7y ago
  > Usually the right winger types are pretty heavily into prosperity gospel and feel that their faith entitles them to whatever they are into. Citation? Not my experience at all.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> They look at the right-wing as more faithful to the tenets of their religious literature, but I don’t see it On the wealth issue specifically, you can certainly read it that way. I mean, I think it's wrong, but it's not like there aren't things that can be viewed, in isolation, as just as emphatic support for the prosperity gospel as other passages can be viewed as a mandate for asceticism. > I think the population of people that are left leaning and Christian practicing is low and they don’t tend to be as influential on the national stage as the religious right. The left-leaning Christian types tend not to wave Christianity around like a cudgel in political discussions, which makes them less visible as Christians in those contexts, even when they are quite visible.

dmix 7y ago

Have you read the full bible? The Jesus stuff might be more on the liberal end but Christianity in general is very much socially conservative. Especially the old testament. In genesis whenever god made a covenant (like made Abraham the main dude) it always came with God giving them great wealth (sheep and an abundance of land) as well as leadership of entire areas. At least the early stuff, the leaders/prophets were hardly the poverty stricken Jesus story. A lot of that poverty narrative became a greater part of Christianity with Saint Francis of Assisi in the middle ages which help push the helping the poor angle as mainstream image of the church. But otherwise you can find plenty of evidence of great wealth leaders in Christian history. Not just in the centuries of mass wealth accumulation in the Holy empires and the Catholic church.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> The Jesus stuff might be more on the liberal end but Christianity in general is very much socially conservative. “Christianity” is about Christ, not something else. > Especially the old testament. The old testament is context for the NT, but with a very small number of exceptions (and with the exceptions of potential general applicability to Jewish Christians, which were common in the first Christian communities but rare today) the dictates of the OT law expressly are superceded by the “Jesus stuff” for Christians.
- fjp 7y ago
  Yes this is exactly it. And just like the circumstances we are discussing now, Jesus found himself and his following in conflict with existing leaders who had amassed wealth and power, and who tried to delegitimize him by saying that his teachings (of charity and anti-wealth gathering) were just an assault on the legitimate god-given power of the existing church. Jesus was a radical hippie immigrant refugee, and his teachings are of course co opted now for the exact opposite effect.
  - dmix 7y ago
    That's an even worse modern day caricature than what the other guy was pushing. The immigrant thing especially considering he was born in Canaan/Israel within walking distance from Jerusalem. I highly recommend reading: "Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth" https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/B00DYMLQEU/ https://www.amazon.com/Zealot-Life-Times-Jesus-Nazareth/dp/B... He was far from a hippie immigrant. He fit a pattern of many men before him claiming similar sanctity and happened to be at the right time and right place in a warn torn Israel for it to really find an audience. But I wasn't even talking about the man himself from a historical perspective, just the general religious and historical environment from which his legend grew. The man-of-the-poor and anti-wealthy narrative was very much a later development in the history of christianity and was always floating on the sidelines of their work, especially in terms of how it was adopted, not merely what was written in the decades and centuries after he died in the bible. Like all religious works there are plenty of room for interpretation and holy but great wealthy leaders are plentiful in the history of christianity. It's hardly a new thing. It's even more established in the Koran through the various prophets and leaders in their canon, all of whom held great power and leadership in their local areas. Even today the works of Mother Theresa are very controversial. Especially in terms of their long term ROI (ie, helping the poor stay poor by accepting their place and not developing the skills or industry to escape such die situations, which to me is not something to be revered).